recent illegal search and seizure cases 2019

at 20-21). Finally, the dissent argues that we are bound to decide this case purely as an application of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v Ross because Mr. Gordon has not preserved a claim under the State Constitution. The importance of upholding our preservation rule that requires a defendant to make a specific state constitutional argument is buttressed by United States Supreme Court precedent concerning an independent state ground for purposes of that Court's jurisdiction (see Michigan v Long, 463 US 1032, 1044 [1983]). In this case, by comparison, the warrant application contained no mention whatsoever of the existence of the vehicles ultimately searched, much less evidence connecting them to any criminality. The warrant further described the premises to include an "attached carport," "a cement driveway," "a cement walkway that leads to the front door," and a "chain link fence." . We explained: "The observations of the police were that this van had made 'trips in and out carrying at least one other person in addition to the driver', and that it was 'the sole vehicle observed entering and leaving these premises on a regular basis'. The authorities of the two countries have worked together to round up statues, vases and bronzes, some of which had appeared in American museums. a premises) does not impliedly encompass the others. In the appropriate case, Dumper may be relevant in assessing how we would decide that issue, but it is not relevant here. Section 690.15 (1) of the CPL states: "1. InJune 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan delivered a blistering account ofthoseFBI raidsWey's attorney. Like Sciacca and Dumper, Hansen focused on the basic tenets of probable cause of criminal activity in the warrants at issue and did not address the question here. As we stated in Hansen, the mere presence of a vehicle seen at the sight of premises wherein the police suspect criminal activity to be occurring does not by itself provide probable cause to search the vehicle (see id. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431. are best promoted by applying State constitutional standards" (Johnson, 66 NY2d at 407) and when the "constitutional protections we have enjoyed in this State . Indeed, a parallel citation indicates a belief by the litigant (or the court) that the state and federal provisions at issue are coextensive. Bumphus's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when the police seized his car and then delayed several days without any legitimate explanation, however small before searching the vehicle, and that The suppression of the gun recovered in the eventual search was warranted. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the analysis developed by the Eleventh Circuit was appropriate, the trial courts findings of fact were supported by the record, and the trial court did not err in granting the motion to suppress. Over several days, police officers observed Mr. Gordon selling heroin from his home; in addition to the surveillance, undercover officers engaged in drug transactions with Mr. Gordon and conducted a controlled buy using an informant. . We cannot accept the argument that the entry into the private garage was a permissible incident of the right to search pursuant to a warrant. Texas court to decide if 2 drug seizures were legal In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 11, 2019 S18A1090. the data for elephant Poaching, Ivory Prices in china, Vietnam and Before Supreme Court, the People responded by attempting to distinguish our prior decisions and arguing that, if they were distinguishable and therefore not controlling, Supreme Court should adopt the People's preferred rule interpreting the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that a passing parallel reference to the State and Federal Constitutions is insufficient to satisfy the plain-statement rulei.e., that a case was decided on a state-law ground (see e.g. LEONARDO YANSON, Accused-Appellant. To satisfy the constitutional requirement for particularity, the description setting forth the search must "leave no discretion to the executing officer[s]" (Brown, 96 NY2d at 84). The Court held first that . the requirements of judicial supervision in the warrant process" (P.J. . Our statement in that case, unrelated to specific facts before the Court, that "a warrant to search a building does not include authority to search vehicles at the premises" (id. His sole contention was that the search of the vehicles was outside the scope of the search permitted by the warrant, noting that the vehicles were not in an attached garage and thus not part of the home. . The State appealed that decision. Biden then recalled the outspoken Georgia Republican's recent allegations regarding fentanyl deaths. The majority disagrees with every federal court and state high court, and posits that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the search of the vehicles here (majority op at 20). Moreover, a search of vehicles is reasonable insofar as defendant may have secreted the objects of the search, i.e., drugs and other evidence of trafficking, in his vehicles (id. In the case of automobiles, unlike desks, closets or trunks, the risks of innocent invasions of privacy are substantially higher, given the commonplace occurrence of traveling by car to visit other places and people. recent illegal search and seizure cases 2022 - gt-max.com.my People v Gordon 238453. In the Nissan, which defendant was borrowing from the owner, the police found heroin, marijuana, cocaine, money, and drug paraphernalia. This not only underscores that the corresponding state and federal constitutional provisions reach the same result, but also demonstrates that, traditionally, the Court "follow[ed] a policy of uniformity with the federal courts" when considering search-and-[*9]seizure arguments (Judith S. Kaye, Dual Constitutionalism in Practice and Principle, 61 St. John's L Rev 399, 417 [1987]; see e.g. The activity described in the affidavit, without more, was innocuous and as consistent with innocence as with criminal activity" (id.). In a 2017 case involving Wall Street financier Benjamin Wey, defense attorney David Siegal, said that FBI agents had gone too far in their search for random items during a raid on Wey's office and residence. Siegal represents John Drago who owned and operated a check cashing business, Kayla Companies. Based on our prior precedent and interpretations thereof by the lower courts, Mr. Gordon argued that the police officers lacked the particularized probable cause necessary to search the vehicles. In the context of Article 1, Section 12, we have done so when, among other considerations, "the aims of predictability and precision in judicial review of search and seizure cases . It is not clear if the search, which was done with the cooperation of Mr. Bidens legal team, uncovered any additional classified files. Instead, this Court has repeatedly held that, to preserve a state constitutional argument, a defendant must specifically argue below that the New York Constitution provides greater protection than the Federal Constitution (see e.g. As a consequence, police officers obtained a warrant for the "entire premises" of 529 Monroe Street, notwithstanding the fact that when they applied for the warrant, the police officers knew that the address contained two separate apartmentsone belonging to the suspect of the search, the other to an innocent third party. In People v Dumper, we held that evidence seized from a vehicle that arrived on a premises during the search of those premises must be suppressed. No. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. In all cases, the alleged sales followed the same pattern: a car would arrive on the street outside the residence, Mr. Gordon or another person would emerge from the residence, approach the prospective buyer, and then return to the residence a few minutes later. In this area of constitutional law, we have set forth principles that would be unduly weakened by the People's preferred rule (see People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 407 [1985]). California v. Lee, California Court of Appeals 2019. are unpreserved here because, in the suppression hearing, defendant did not argue that the State Constitution provides greater protections than its federal counterpart"][FN9]; People v Hansen, 99 NY2d 339, 344, 345 n 4 [2003] [holding that the defendant failed to preserve "grounds to impose any heightened due process procedures" under the State Constitution, even though his due-process challenge below referenced both the State and Federal Constitutions]). . We delineated an "independent body" of search-and-seizure law under the State Constitution, and we have explained that, because the state and federal provisions contain similar language and share a common history, any divergence in meaning must derive from a "noninterpretive analysis" focused on "circumstances peculiar to New York" (People v Harris, 77 NY2d 434, 438-439 [1991]). By Alan Feuer,Maggie Haberman and Ben Protess. The notion that the Government will now, at this late date,seek to add new charges and additional detail, but only in reaction to being embarrassed byhaving lost the suppression motion, smacks of impropriety and desperation on theGovernments part. The police searched a car based on the smell of marijuana. Cases involving violations of basic rights of citizensin order to achieve a criminal enforcement action is simply wrong. Yet that statement represents our Court's understanding of the meaning of our prior decisions in Hansen and Dumper, one that, as we noted in Sciacca, accords with the legislature's prescription of "what and who" are subject to search pursuant to a New York warrant (see CPL 690.15 [1] ["A search warrant must direct a search of one or more of the following: (a) A designated or described place or premises; (b) A designated or described vehicle . The People's contention that a search warrant authorizing the search of a premises encompasses an implicit grant of [*5]authority to search all vehicles located on the property undermines the legislature's delineation of three distinct categories as appropriate subjects of a search (see Matter of Orens v Novello, 99 NY2d 180, 187 [2002] ["When different terms are used in various parts of a statute or rule, it is reasonable to assume that a distinction between them is intended"], quoting Matter of Albano v Kirby, 36 NY2d 526, 530 [1975]; Rangolan v County of Nassau, 96 NY2d 42, 47 [2001] ["where .

Twisted X Brewery Owner Dies, Oklahoma Soccer Tournaments 2022, Articles R